Fact check: How many times has Donald gone golfing in the last 60 days

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal that none of the sources provide a specific answer to the question about how many times Donald Trump has gone golfing in the last 60 days. However, the sources do provide broader context about Trump's golfing frequency during his second term:

• Trump has made 62 visits to his golf courses in the first six months of his second term ^{[1] [2]}
• He has golfed 49 out of the first 198 days of his second term according to DidTrumpGolfToday.com ^[3]
• Another source reports Trump has played golf 40 times since taking office in January ^[4]
• One analysis mentions Trump has golfed on 51 of his first 215 days in office ^[5]
• A separate count shows 43 days out of 186 days in office ^[6]

For historical comparison, Trump played golf 261 times during his entire first term ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about which timeframe is being referenced. The analyses show conflicting data points that suggest different counting methodologies:

• Visits vs. actual rounds played: Some sources count "visits to golf courses" while others count actual golf rounds (p1_s2, p2_s2 vs. p1_s3, p3_s2)
• Different tracking periods: The various sources reference different total days in office, suggesting they were published at different times during Trump's second term
• Taxpayer cost implications: The analyses reveal this question connects to broader concerns about taxpayer expenses, with sources mentioning Trump's "eye-popping" golf-related costs ^{[3] [5]}

Powerful stakeholders who benefit from tracking Trump's golf frequency include:

• Ethics watchdog organizations like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who use this data to highlight potential corruption ^[2]
• Political opponents who can use high golf frequency numbers to criticize Trump's work ethic
• Trump supporters who might benefit from lower, more defensible numbers

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral on its surface but contains an implicit assumption that someone has been systematically tracking Trump's golf outings over the specific 60-day period. The question's framing suggests:

• Precision that doesn't exist: By asking for an exact count over exactly 60 days, it implies such precise data is readily available when the analyses show it is not ^{[7] [1] [4]}
• Potential setup for criticism: The specific 60-day timeframe may be chosen to capture a period of particularly high golf activity, though this cannot be confirmed from the available analyses

The question also lacks context about why this specific timeframe matters, which could indicate an attempt to cherry-pick data for political purposes rather than seeking genuine transparency about presidential activities.